STAR HardProbes PWG

["Mooney, Isaac" <isaac.mooney AT yale.edu>]

Hi Yan,

Sorry for my late response (I had the deadline mixed up in my head). At this 
point the proceedings look very nice. I have some further comments below for 
your consideration. With these addressed, I sign off.

Thanks,
Isaac

58. It would be nice to elaborate a bit here. The statement that the double 
ratio is closer to SPS than the LHC doesn't tell the reader very much with no 
additional context. You could mention something about the rapidity and CM 
ranges and how they relate to the STAR results. This doesn't require any 
speculation about why the data would be closer in trend to the SPS results, 
and at least gives a bit more detail. I would also be a bit less strong about 
the better agreement with SPS results since within uncertainties on the STAR 
and ALICE results it looks like they are consistent. Some wiggle word would 
be good, e.g. "hint" or "potential" or similar.

62. Remove one of the "notably"s

64. The polarization result doesn't feel like it is getting appropriate 
consideration. I understand you have very limited space, but there is no 
discussion of what polarization tells us, how it was measured (e.g. decay 
channel), what the different reference frames mean, what it would mean 
physically to get a non-zero polarization, or even whether we see a non-zero 
polarization in the plots (you say there is no dependence on pT or 
centrality, but not that it is consistent with any particular value, until 
the conclusion paragraph). To me although it is good to see that indeed 
lambda_inv is consistent between the two frames, it might be better to just 
present the lambda_phi and lambda_theta since that saves you a row of Fig. 4, 
and with that space you can discuss the measurement and its implications a 
bit more. If you wanted to mention the consistency of lambda_inv, you still 
could, just saying "...between the two frames (not shown)..."

Fig. 4. Aesthetic comment: would it be possible to make the figures the same 
size?

> On Dec 8, 2023, at 9:56 AM, Nihar Sahoo via Star-hp-l 
> <star-hp-l AT lists.bnl.gov> wrote:
>
> Hello Yan,
>
> Thank you for implementing my comments.
> I sign off.
>
> Best
> Nihar
>
> On 2023-12-04 22:26, wy157543 AT mail.ustc.edu.cn wrote:
>> Hi Nihar,
>> Thank you for your nice comments.
>> Due to space constraints, not all references are listed (those using
>> their data points are prioritized)
>> The new version can be found in this link:
>> https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/node/66082
>> best,
>> Yan
>>> -----原始邮件-----
>>> 发件人: "Nihar Sahoo via Star-hp-l" <star-hp-l AT lists.bnl.gov>
>>> 发送时间: 2023-12-04 10:34:43 (星期一)
>>> 收件人: "STAR HardProbes PWG" <star-hp-l AT lists.bnl.gov>
>>> 抄送: "Nihar Sahoo" <nihar AT rcf.rhic.bnl.gov>, webmaster AT star.bnl.gov
>>> 主题: Re: [Star-hp-l] STAR presentation by Yan Wang for Quark Matter 2023 
>>> submitted for review
>>> Hello Yan,
>>> Please find below my comments on your nice proceedings.
>>> General:
>>> J/ψ -> make "J" italic all places
>>> isobaric collisions -> isobar collisions
>>> L7:We report on quarkonium (J/ψ and ψ(2S)) measurements -> We report the
>>> measurements of quarkonium (J/ψ and ψ(2S))
>>> L15:        in both Helicity and Collins-Soper frames -> in both the 
>>> helicity
>>> and the Collins-Soper frames
>>> L15-16: a new angle -> a new insight ;
>>> in these collisions -> in heavy-ion collisions
>>> L21: "The anticipated dissociation …" -> give references
>>> L24:        Alongside dissociation in the medium -> Alongside the 
>>> dissociation
>>> in the medium
>>>       effects -> the effects
>>> L25: to the experimentally measured yields -> to the measured yields
>>> L25-24: Give references
>>> L33: J/psi -> The J/psi
>>> L34: applying event-level -> applying the event-level
>>>             quality cuts -> selections ["quality cuts" is a jargon, avoid 
>>> it in
>>> writing]
>>> "After applying event-level and track quality cuts,…" -> After applying
>>> good event and track selection criteria, the electron
>>> L36:        Considering the absence of inclusive -> Due to unavailability 
>>> of
>>> inclusive …
>>> L40:        figure 1 -> Fig.1. [same 45 and 67]
>>> L41: for energies of -> at \sNN=
>>> L46: This could result from a -> This could be due to a combination…
>>> L47:calculation ,  -> calculation,
>>> L48: describe data with an indication of underestimation at 27 GeV and
>>> below.->    describe the data but quantitatively underestimates below \sNN
>>> = 27 GeV.
>>> L51: isobaric collisions -> isobar collisions [elsewhere]
>>> L61: is significant lower  ->               is significantly lower [same 
>>> in L75]
>>> L68:   of λinv between -> mention what is λinv ?
>>> Fig.3 caption: "For measurements from heavy-ion collisions, the error…"
>>> -> The error… [same for Fig,2]
>>> Best
>>> Nihar
>>> On 2023-11-25 00:08, webmaster--- via Star-hp-l wrote:
>>> > Dear Star-hp-l AT lists.bnl.gov members,
>>> >
>>> > Yan Wang (wy157543 AT mail.ustc.edu.cn) has submitted a material for a
>>> > review,
>>> > please have a look:
>>> > https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/node/66082
>>> >
>>> > ---
>>> > If you have any problems with the review process, please contact
>>> > webmaster@http://www.star.bnl.gov/
>>> > _______________________________________________
>>> > Star-hp-l mailing list
>>> > Star-hp-l AT lists.bnl.gov
>>> > https://lists.bnl.gov/mailman/listinfo/star-hp-l
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Star-hp-l mailing list
>>> Star-hp-l AT lists.bnl.gov
>>> https://lists.bnl.gov/mailman/listinfo/star-hp-l
> _______________________________________________
> Star-hp-l mailing list
> Star-hp-l AT lists.bnl.gov
> https://lists.bnl.gov/mailman/listinfo/star-hp-l